Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.
Full Story

<quoted text>We've had a slow erosion of our pure secularist roots ever since we became a country --March 4, 1789 - secular U.S. government established.June 7, 1797 -“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”~ unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams1863 - President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving1870 - Christmas was declared a federal holiday by Congress1881 - Chester A. Arthur swearing in ceremony is the first documented response of "so help me god" (not a part of the official oath of office).1890 - "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation." ~ Elizabeth Cady StantonApril 17, 1952 - President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming a National Day of Prayer must be declared by each following president at an appropriate date of his choice.(In 1988, the law was amended so that the National Day of Prayer would be held on the first Thursday of May.)June 14, 1954 - "God" was added to the pledge, changing us from “one nation indivisible” into one nation divided by god.July 30, 1956 - "God" was added as our national motto and officially put on our money (I still prefer "e pluribus unum" - out of many we become one).August 27, 1987 –“No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”~ George H. W. Bush

Democratic Government in the US may not hold with secularist beliefs. John Adams was a Unitarian.Christmas and Easter vacations in Public Schools.

Yes instead of you dictating to atheists what they are perhaps you should actually listen to an atheist?

Feel free to change screen names again.

inv e wrote:

<quoted text>I see, interesting.. It may take me a little while to wrap my head around your view of atheism, but I will try. One thing is for sure, I doubt I'll be entering anymore discussions with such a variety each individual atheists believes. To find common ground with one, another will disagree with it, and it continues on endlessly.

1: Stay away from those how to debate an atheist websites that you stole your arguments from.

2: Listen to actual atheists. Don't dictate and obfuscate what you want them to be.

3: Most importantly show us why we should accept your god as anything more than your imagination.

inv e wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, I only just became aware of that lol. I came here thinking I understood atheism, to find its as broad as a new word I just added to my small vocabulary, theism. I'm not sure if one can argue against something so broad.

<quoted text>No study of Biology NEEDS to recognise the myth (lie) of evolution yes they are all taught it and that to indoctrinate their thinking, NEED it now way. I do not need the myth (lie) of evolution to study the cell in a muscle and the way it interacts with amino acids in order to develop, nor do I need to have any need of the myth (lie) of evolution in order to study embryonic development. In order to create a predictive model of any sort one need to begin with a base if that precondition is myth (lie) of evolution they your model will be established with a faulty base and your conclusion based on myth (lie) of evolution will never be proven, if however you construct your model on knowledge of the seen and tested then your outcome is testable and reproducible in the lab.The issue you have with you myth (lie) of evolution based model is that you age your fossils by the layers of the geologic column and you age the layers of the geologic column by the fossils you found in them. WRONG you cannot do so. How do you explain the existence of dino footprints alongside human footprints and how do you explain the finding of Dino soft tissue still intact. Some problems for your myth (lie) of evolution and billions of years.

Evolution: gradual adaptations played out over huge time spans.Reality: that which is left when all the bullshit has been tossed. Like floating spotted sticks in your zebra's drinking water.

<quoted text>The worlds most prominant physisits have had to postulate "multiverses", parrallel universis" and "worm hole producing baby universis" all to try an refute the clear implication of the anthropic principles.

That actually is not how it happens. We have two deep theories about how the universe works: general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity deals with large masses and high velocities, while quantum mechanics deals with atomic and sub-atomic phenomena. Both are incredibly well tested and are well-established in their realm of relevance.

Now, general relativity is a classical theory and describes gravity (among other things). It is also the foundation for our understanding of the expansion of the universe and, ultimately, the base theory for the Big Bang scenario.

Quantum mechanics, is a probabilistic theory, where the results of particular interactions cannot be predicted, but the overall probabilities can. It describes *everything* as a wave/particle where the wave describes the probability of detecting a particle.

The problem is that for the very early universe we need a quantum theory of gravity. Essentially, the densities get so high that the quantum effects become relevant for the gravitational fields. It has turned out to be very difficult to find a single theory that encompasses both general relativity and quantum mechanics. This has been a focus of physicists for the last 80 years and we only have a couple of viable theories that do this: string theory is one of them (loop quantum gravity is another).

Now, if you take the mathematics of string theory seriously, it *predicts* the existence of a multiverse and describes how universes like ours are formed from this multiverse. Instead of trying to use the concept of the multiverse to avoid the anthropic principle, it comes naturally out of the desire to unify gravity and quantum mechanics.

The statistical imporbability of mutiple life producing phenomina reduiguires a better explanantion than Adams..."well were here so I guess its no big deal" - non answer.FYI - I dont axpect you to answer this querry, I am just demonstrating that many juvinile atheists have a hard time excepting that genuine intellectual challanges abound for their zelous lack of belief.

Genuine intellectual challenges abound when attempting to understand the universe. The scientific method gives us a way to untangle the complexities and gives us a hope of real understanding. It isn't an easy or straight road. It tends to have false starts, misunderstandings, faulty assumptions, etc. But, in the long run, the requirement that ideas be testable and that they agree with all observations will win out.

<quoted text>I see, interesting.. It may take me a little while to wrap my head around your view of atheism, but I will try. One thing is for sure, I doubt I'll be entering anymore discussions with such a variety each individual atheists believes. To find common ground with one, another will disagree with it, and it continues on endlessly.

While you are at it, consider this ... absurd as it sounds, the atheist may just be the one to consult as to who the atheist actually is. Every atheist is just the one thing, "not theist".

<quoted text>Oh ya God could in no way make a female out of Adams rib.He spoke into existence's everything you see and all you don't see. He breathed the breath of life in to dirt to create Adam.DNA who do you think made it?LOL

No, he couldn't have done that, he couldn't even count the legs on insects, or figure out that birds didn't have mammary glands.

<quoted text>Think again it is not a story it is in fact an accurate account of the creation of the human race.I will make a presumption here then set you a test, I presume you are capable of basic mathematics (hopefully I am right) ok now calculated the population of the world based on the myth (lie) of evolution taking into account the normal population model, then do the same for the creation account. If you are honest enough to do so then your results may just shock you, if you are not then your results will not.

I have seen the creationist claims on population growth and, truthfully, they have problems right from the start because they assume a constant rate of growth. We know very well that this is a bad assumption because we know that the rate of growth over the last couple of centuries has been much higher than for previous times. Add to that the fact that some periods of time have *negative* population growth (bubonic plague anyone?) and it is easy to see the creationist model is deeply flawed. The models don't even correctly predict the population at the time of the Roman empire.

The first problem is modeling the rate of growth. We know it is not constant, so the exponential growth models fail right from the start. Furthermore, the assumptions of continuous growth fail when populations get too small (as they would be for early humans) and more statistical methods need to be used.

<quoted text>That actually is not how it happens. We have two deep theories about how the universe works: general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity deals with large masses and high velocities, while quantum mechanics deals with atomic and sub-atomic phenomena. Both are incredibly well tested and are well-established in their realm of relevance.Now, general relativity is a classical theory and describes gravity (among other things). It is also the foundation for our understanding of the expansion of the universe and, ultimately, the base theory for the Big Bang scenario.Quantum mechanics, is a probabilistic theory, where the results of particular interactions cannot be predicted, but the overall probabilities can. It describes *everything* as a wave/particle where the wave describes the probability of detecting a particle.The problem is that for the very early universe we need a quantum theory of gravity. Essentially, the densities get so high that the quantum effects become relevant for the gravitational fields. It has turned out to be very difficult to find a single theory that encompasses both general relativity and quantum mechanics. This has been a focus of physicists for the last 80 years and we only have a couple of viable theories that do this: string theory is one of them (loop quantum gravity is another).Now, if you take the mathematics of string theory seriously, it *predicts* the existence of a multiverse and describes how universes like ours are formed from this multiverse. Instead of trying to use the concept of the multiverse to avoid the anthropic principle, it comes naturally out of the desire to unify gravity and quantum mechanics.<quoted text>Genuine intellectual challenges abound when attempting to understand the universe. The scientific method gives us a way to untangle the complexities and gives us a hope of real understanding. It isn't an easy or straight road. It tends to have false starts, misunderstandings, faulty assumptions, etc. But, in the long run, the requirement that ideas be testable and that they agree with all observations will win out.

Actually, Poly, in my lab, we postulate physics to disprove anthropomorphic universes and have managed to separate the strong anthropic principle from the weak big quantum bang theory. And, in the doing, we have determined that God = 2.0192756e34we, while Buddha = 8, therefore demonstrating that rum - dark, mind you, at least 7 years old, mainly Cuban - is among the most enjoyable beverages to be had with cigars (again, preferably Cuban).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.